Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 54 (KAR)

P. Balakrishna v. State of Karnataka

2010-01-13

A.S.PACHHAPURE

body2010
Judgment : This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 requesting for grant of bail having been arrested for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under: One Mr. R. Manjunatha, a resident of Devanahalli Town submitted the complaint to the Police on 13-5-2009 at about 3.00 a.m. The facts in the complaint reveal that the complainant had advanced an amount of Rs. 10,000.00 to one Mohan Kumar-C.W. 2 and on 12-5-2009, as he was in need of money, he asked Mr. Mohan Kumar to repay the amount and accordingly, C.W. 2-Mohan Kumar was coming to the house of the complainant and at about 10.45 p.m. when he was near Anjaneya Swamy Temple. It is alleged that accused 1 to 4 and others were quarreling with the deceased Subramani and Mune Gowda and were insisting for withdrawal of a case. He felt that his intervention was not necessary and that they may be discussing with regard to the compromise in the matter. 3. Later, Mr. Mohan Kumar-C.W. 2 paid the amount of Rs. 10,000.00 and after staying in the house of the complainant for some time, returned back and at about 11.45 p.m. he came scared and running to the house of the complainant and told that the accused 1 to 6 caused the assault on the deceased Subramani and Mune Gowda with the chopper, knife, long and clubs and when he saw the incident, one of the accused notice Mr. Mohan Kumar and chased him to cause the assault. C.W. 2 also told that while he was running towards the house, he sustained injury due to the assault by a long by one of the accused and that he escaped from them. Immediately, the complainant and C.W. 2-Mohan Kumar went to the place and saw the accused running away from the spot. The head portion of the deceased Mune Gowda was completely cut and Subramani had sustained severe injuries on the face, chest, neck, etc. He was shifted in the vehicle to Government Hospital and later, he died at about 1.30 a.m. in the night. 4. The head portion of the deceased Mune Gowda was completely cut and Subramani had sustained severe injuries on the face, chest, neck, etc. He was shifted in the vehicle to Government Hospital and later, he died at about 1.30 a.m. in the night. 4. There was a complaint before a year to the incident with regard to the assault and attempt to cause the death and it is in this regard that the complainant alleges that the accused caused the assault on both the deceased and the accused were responsible for the death. The complaint filed on these facts was registered by the Police and during the investigation, the petitioner has been arrested. 5. The petitioner submits that he is innocent. He has not committed any offence much less the one that has been alleged and that his name does not appear in the complaint and therefore, in the circumstances, he requests to grant the bail by imposing reasonable conditions. 6. The High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition and states that there are eye-witnesses and there is prima facie material against the petitioner and that his name was revealed during the course of the investigation. On these grounds, he has sought for the dismissal of the petition. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the High Court Government Pleader. 8. As could be seen from the allegations in the complaint, the complainant and C.W. 2 are the eye-witnesses, but they do not state the participation of the petitioner in the crime. It is only after about 15 days after the incident, when the additional statement of the complainant was recorded and at that time, he stated that he petitioner was also present at the time of the incident and had held the legs, while causing the assault by the accused. This fact was not stated by him when he lodged the complaint to the Police nor C.W. 2 referred to the participation of the petitioner. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein the bail has to be granted by imposing certain conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following.- ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein the bail has to be granted by imposing certain conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following.- ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall attend the Court on each of the date of hearing; (ii) He shall not cause any threat, force or coercion to any of the witnesses of the complainant. The petition is accordingly disposed of.